« Pelosi's Opposition to Drilling Explained | Main | CNN Compares Palestinian Terrorists to Dalai Lama »
August 4, 2008
Dumped Lesbian Cries Bigamy
Unsurprisingly, legislative attempts to mainstream homosexual depravity with sham marriages and civil unions are resulting in chaos:
The two women married in Canada, obtained identical tattoos and picked out adjoining burial plots with the expectation that they would be together till death and beyond. Then one of them fell for someone else, and without getting a divorce, entered into a Vermont civil union in Stowe with the new woman.
Now the woman who says she was left behind — Laureen Wells-Weiss — is alleging that her estranged spouse committed bigamy and that Vermont authorities are neglecting their duty by declining to press charges.
Wells-Weiss thinks she's being oppressed because the government won't throw her erstwhile lesbian lover in jail. But charges won't be pressed because now even left-wing lawyers are confused over what's a real marriage and what isn't.
If they don't get it sorted out, homosexuals will be more privileged than ever. Think of the benefits they could collect if they can have as many phony "marriages" and civil unions as they want.
Maybe everyone would be better off if we just kept things simple by letting marriage be marriage, and keeping perverted same-sex relationships in the closet where they belong.
On a tip from Oiao.
Posted by Van Helsing at August 4, 2008 10:03 AM
Comments
That was quick.
Posted by: forest at August 4, 2008 10:38 AM
I saw the most hilarious clip on TV today. Some new show called "Little Britain USA" and one of the characters asks the real Rosie O'Donnell:
"Are you fat because you're a lesbian or a lesbian because you're fat?"
Posted by: Ryan at August 4, 2008 11:36 AM
He was on a roll. He should've followed up by asking, "Are you a nitwit because you're a liberal, or a liberal because you're a nitwit?"
Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 4, 2008 11:49 AM
...and reality comes to bite them in the ass! OHHH, poor BABY! You don't get everything you want! You demanded the standard of marriage for the last 3000-plus years to be changed JUST FOR YOU, now you don't like it so much and DEMAND THAT IT BE CHANGED AGAIN!
Homosexuality is an aberration. If you must be one, fine. Do not ask society to "mainstream" you. You shouldn't be penalized for it, but neither should you be rewarded...and ABSOLUTELY things as fundamental as marriage should not be changed just so you can pretend you're normal.
Now, deal with the consequences of your actions and stop asking for everyone to waste their time on your self-inflicted problems!
Posted by: matt at August 4, 2008 1:46 PM
Yep, I've been saying this for years now. Sometimes it's nice to be right! Gays want "marriage", but they (or at least the activists) never thought about divorce. What happens when they want to shack up with someone else? The same thing that happens to straight couples!
As far as the lawsuit, I think Laureen Wells-Weiss has a legitimate gripe. They were married in Canada, who recognizes such things. The United States recognizes marriages that are valid in a foreign country, therefore they are married. Now her (wife|husband) has gone and married (civil-unioned) someone else. Civil unions extend married couple benefits to same-sex couples, therefore the state of Vermont should not have granted the civil union because one of them already had an existing union in place. As Van pointed out, allowing multiple civil unions is an unworkable mess. Therefore, Vermont acted incorrectly and her (wife|husband) is guilty of bigamy.
Good grief, what a God-awful mess the moonbats have made this time.
Posted by: CoderInCrisis at August 4, 2008 3:23 PM
Coder - I think there are two questions here: one is whether a person in Vermont is prohibited from entering into a civil union when they're already married; two is whether the laws of Vermont have any provision allowing them to not recognize a foreign-state marriage when it runs contrary to public policy. I'm assuming that Vermont was foresighted enough to worry about this situation, but then again maybe they weren't. I suppose the aggrieved lesbian might have a "legitimate gripe", if we want to grant any legitimacy to this farcical situation.
Posted by: PabloD at August 4, 2008 6:06 PM
This case has gotta be a PC-lawyer's nightmare... Three lesbians arguing in court, who do you side with without getting called a misogynistic homophobe either way you choose?
Posted by: BURNING HOT at August 4, 2008 7:13 PM
It's hard not to gloat in cases where Liberals screw themselves over, but I just can't stop smiling over the thought of our regular Leftie posters having fits over whether or not to post a retort!
Posted by: KHarn at August 5, 2008 6:49 AM
